Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 93 My greetings! :-) > Not all tantras consider themselves as veda-bahya. If it is > so,there will not be the standard talk about veda-viruddha tantra > (tantras opposed to vedas) and veda-aviruddha tantras(tantras not > opposed to vedas). Of course not all, i didn't say that :-). I want to point out that by "vaidika" i usually mean that version of vedic dharma which got popular in recent times. However practically ALL Tantras are in contradiction with smriti. Even if they speak of Vedas highly (never of smriti/purana/itihasa btw), practical teachings of 'em are different. Kularnava says of Kaula-dharma as the essense of Veda, but what Kularnava teaches in viruddha to smarta and sanatani hinduism. Is there any need to proove it? > The standard example quoted in support of this is physicians > making use to poison and arsenic compounds to enhance the health of > a human. Likewise that which is sin according to vedas is used for > spiritually advancing in some tantras. Does Abhinava say that vedas > are imperfect? Yes. He states that all knowledge of Vedas is imperfect. It is not my view :-). U are right about poison stuff. Of course Tantras do not mean that sinning itself is good, nothing like that. If so why do tantras claim that they are the essence > of veda? There can be little doubt here that when tantras talk about > veda they talk about that which is generally known as veda. There are 2 main explanations. First one is that Vedas are not applied for kali-yuga (in MNT for instance). Second one is that Vedas are so to say a shell in which light of Agama is concieled. In practice both views result in same: it is needed nowadays to follow the tantric way of salvation. > You might be right when you say the connection is speculative. > Likewise your statement "tantrics has to give official reasons...", > I feel is only speculative. Guess work. Yes, it is only a guess. We cannot know exactly now what ppl thought several hundreds years ago. We may see that too many hymns, upanishads, kavachas are ascribed to A.V., but they are not present in the text we posess. A.V. was "used" to make whatever U want "vedic", due to the fact that A.V. text was not so exact as other samhitas. > As for Atharvana veda: One of the four principal Shankara mutts > accepts only someone well versed in Atharvana veda as the head of > the pitha or as a succesor. There is great effort going on to > preserve the shakas of Atharvana veda from the time of Bhaskararaya. > Those brahmins who have the last name as caturvedi, are all well > versed in Atharvana -veda. Ofcourse, thesedays, last names are > retained even though they dont study vedas at all. Myself i accept A.V., no need to prove me it's authenticity. My teachers also accept it. Sure, some tantric mantras were taken from A.V. (like Pratyangira) and other Vedas (Aghora-mantra, Mrityunjaya, some of 5M purification mantras). But this doesn't imply that Tantras came from these Vedas. > That is speculative. When they say veda, they are definitely > referring to what is generally known as vedas. This can be verified > by examining the whole context. Sometimes we have to be a bit speculative (following the example of renown acharyas of the past), otherwise shastras are sometimes too contradictory. > Some consider shruti is of two types. Veda and tantra. This is true. At least in classification :-). In fact tantric teachings are based on Tantras, not Vedas etc. > Arthur Avalon suggests otherwise. He says that it is as old as > other standard tantras. This is a very doubtful view. Language and composition of MNT reveal it as being rather recent work. We may add that some features of it's teachings count for the same. My guru told that some parts of MNT may be quiet old, thou the present text is obviously recent. > A couple of tantras say that there is only pashu bhava in kali - > yuga. They add that Vira and Divya bhava are absent in kali-yuga. I know only one Tantra of this peculiar kind - Kalivilasa. But pashu-bhava according to it is rather strange :-))). Can U name any other Tantra stating this? Usually it is exactly opposite. Thus, MNT says that there is no pashu-bhava in kali-yuga... > Kaulas do worship Shiva and Devi. Dont they? Well, they worship ONE Divine Being, that is "polarized" as Shiva and Shakti (aka Prakasha-Vimarsha). It is totally different from worshipping devas in folk hinduism and even worship of Ishvara. > Grihasta ashrama(life of house-holder) is the ideal in hindu > dharma. One can see lots of praise for this ashrama in smarta- > shastra. Sanyasa being an ideal is a recent idea. Probably U are right. I not so well-versed in smriti. Anyway, in our time most of gurus are sannyasis, thou actually sannyasi should be guru to sannyasi and grihasthi to grihasthis :-(. Thus rules of sannyasa are often forced upon grihasthis. > There are differences. But does that made it different from hindu? > No. Those differences we speak about are also hindu. Of course tantrics lived in hindu society and pretended to be hindus. "Inside kaulas, outside - shaivas, in the world as vaidikas"...:-) In some very important matters tantrism is closer to christianity or islam than to other hindu doctrines. And out of other hindu schools it is close to most "heretical", such as sahajiya, natha and aghora. > Problem is that tantra is understood as black-magic. True, unfortunately :-(. > That policy # 4 is typed in 1999 when the group was started. A > 1000 things changed from then. We should have updated that. Then U may understand that Ur actions seemed to be unreasonable. U should have put Ur rules clearly. > Probably coz it wasnt scientific enough. Well, this is a futile statement. > Coz Dakshinachara is the focus of that group. I point again, that it was somewhere in official materials said that proper posts on vamachara are accepted. > Animal sacrifice isnt widespread but can be seen in other states > too. Kamakhya(state of Assam) is another place. I know about Kamakhya. However it can be seen in shakta-tantric temples only. Do U know about shaiva-siddhantins or vaishnavas performing them? But they should according to their scriptures! > Main tantric ritual is 5m only for a vamachari. The tantric rituals > of Dakshinachara dont include 5m. Daxinachara is a preliminary level before vama. It exists only to make pashus suitable to vira-sadhanas. Most of Tantras prescribe vama/kaula-achara. Most say that 5M is the essense of tantric doctrine (Kamakhya etc) and without 5M all sadhana is useless or even sinful (MNT, Kularnava, Bhairava etc). > I dont think one is justified when he says main tantric ritual is 5m. It is central in kaula-tantrism. In any case, maithuna is. > Tantric need not be a vamachari. A couple of tantras say that there > is only pashu-bhava in kali-yuga. I already said about this view. It is de facto absent from most of Tantras ( i may say all, with exception of Kalivilasa). > Meat andFish are used in vaidik kriyas. A good number of vedic > yagas are incomplete without animal sacrifice. These yagas involving > animal sacrifices are performed even today. I personally know ppl > who does vedic yagas with animal sacrifice. I know about vedic sacrifises. But as i thought practises of ashvamedha etc were stopped long ago. Is it continued till now? Very interesting... > Shankaracharya's Prapanchasara tantra talks about intercourse as a > kind of ritual. I also read that the Satapatha brahmana speaks about > intercourse in a similar manner. Brihadaranyakopanishat does as well. This idea is vedic as well, not only tantric - no doubt in that. Sadly it almost vanished from hinduism... Some sects even prescribe their grihasthi followers to have sex for procreation! :-( Of course, this spoiles lives of ppl, i know examples with ISKCON in Russia... This ridiculous idea is neither vedic nor agamic, but some really perverted ppl invented it for making others suffer :-(. Love is the law, love under will. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: >> > Of course not all, i didn't say that :-). I want to point out that >by > "vaidika" i usually mean that version of vedic dharma which got > popular in recent times. Ok. Popular hinduism isnt vedic nor is it based on smarta. They are too few if any who follow the smritis or care for them. A normal hindu doesnt know that there is something called smriti. > However practically ALL Tantras are in contradiction with smriti. Any examples? >Even > if they speak of Vedas highly (never of smriti/purana/itihasa >btw), > practical teachings of 'em are different. > Kularnava says of Kaula-dharma as the essense of Veda, but what > Kularnava teaches in viruddha to smarta and sanatani hinduism. Is > there any need to proove it? Example: Kularnava toes the line of smritis when talking about castes. Kularanava says make wine this and that way and drink wine while doing rituals etc. But when is not performing a kaula ritual, what stand does it take on wine? Kularanava preaches that looking at wine is sin and one should see the sun to get rid of that sin. It says smelling wine is a sin and one needs to do pranayama to get rid of that sin. It goes to the extent of saying that one should burn his tongue if he drinks wine. Which is exactly what smritis say. I am aware that it has statements saying looking at wine gives spiritual merit and that the gods are pleased by doing so. But that is only when performing a kaula ritual and only when that wine is purified by mantras etc. It has the same opinion about wine like smritis during other times. Does one need any more proof to see that Kularanava is inline with vedas and smritis? > > > The standard example quoted in support of this is physicians > > making use to poison and arsenic compounds to enhance the health of > > a human. Likewise that which is sin according to vedas is used for > > spiritually advancing in some tantras. Does Abhinava say that vedas > > are imperfect? > > Yes. He states that all knowledge of Vedas is imperfect. It is not my > view :-). > U are right about poison stuff. Of course Tantras do not mean that > sinning itself is good, nothing like that. Right. Which means that tantras do accept that what is mentioned in smritis as sin is actually a sin. > > If so why do tantras claim that they are the essence > > of veda? There can be little doubt here that when tantras talk about > > veda they talk about that which is generally known as veda. > > There are 2 main explanations. First one is that Vedas are not applied > for kali-yuga (in MNT for instance). Second one is that Vedas are so > to say a shell in which light of Agama is concieled. In practice both > views result in same: it is needed nowadays to follow the tantric way > of salvation. I quoted an extract from Bagchi's article where he quotes a couple of tantras saying that one who doesnt perform vaidika kriya is disqualified from tantric practices. > Yes, it is only a guess. We cannot know exactly now what ppl thought > several hundreds years ago. > We may see that too many hymns, upanishads, kavachas are ascribed to > A.V., but they are not present in the text we posess. A.V. was "used" > to make whatever U want "vedic", due to the fact that A.V. text was > not so exact as other samhitas. Likewise a portion of other vedas is lost forever. Take the case of Rudrayamala: We see many works panchangas etc. which say "iti rudrayamala such and such", while if one goes thru standard edition of Rudrayamala one may not find them. That doesnt mean they dont belong to Rudrayamala. We lost the original text of Rudrayamala with all its contents and only parts remain. Same is true with Atharvana Veda. > Myself i accept A.V., no need to prove me it's authenticity. My > teachers also accept it. > Sure, some tantric mantras were taken from A.V. (like Pratyangira) and > other Vedas (Aghora-mantra, Mrityunjaya, some of 5M purification > mantras). But this doesn't imply that Tantras came from these Vedas. May be all tantras did not come from veda. But doesnt the above prove the strong bond-connection between veda and tantra. Which is the reason, I have been saying it is very much hindu. > > Arthur Avalon suggests otherwise. He says that it is as old as > > other standard tantras. > > This is a very doubtful view. Language and composition of MNT reveal > it as being rather recent work. We may add that some features of it's > teachings count for the same. > My guru told that some parts of MNT may be quiet old, thou the present > text is obviously recent. The shakta work prANatoShiNi and some other work are said to contain passages from Mahanirvana. > > > A couple of tantras say that there is only pashu bhava in kali - > > yuga. They add that Vira and Divya bhava are absent in kali-yuga. > > I know only one Tantra of this peculiar kind - Kalivilasa. But > pashu-bhava according to it is rather strange :-))). Can U name any > other Tantra stating this? Usually it is exactly opposite. Thus, MNT > says that there is no pashu-bhava in kali-yuga... Actually Avalon quotes a passage from prANatoShiNi which is said to be from MahaNirvana saying there is only pashubhava in kali yuga. It is also said that Rudrayamala says the same that divya and vira bhava are absent in Kaliyuga. Avalon also mentions Jnana tantra as saying this. > > > Kaulas do worship Shiva and Devi. Dont they? > > Well, they worship ONE Divine Being, that is "polarized" as Shiva and > Shakti (aka Prakasha-Vimarsha). It is totally different from > worshipping devas in folk hinduism and even worship of Ishvara. So does the attitude towards worship differs from sect to sect. Does that make each sect as differeent or alien to hinduism? How about Shankara Vedanta or kevala advaita.Dont they worship "one" divine being Brahman? In which case we should be saying that it is closer to Advaita -Vedanta rather than Christianity , Kabballah or whatever. > Probably U are right. I not so well-versed in smriti. Anyway, in our > time most of gurus are sannyasis, thou actually sannyasi should be > guru to sannyasi and grihasthi to grihasthis :-(. Thus rules of > sannyasa are often forced upon grihasthis. There are incidents where sanyasis approach Grihastas for Mantropadehsa and to learn vedanta. > Of course tantrics lived in hindu society and pretended to be hindus. > "Inside kaulas, outside - shaivas, in the world as vaidikas"...:-) There is no pretention. Kaulas are hindus for reaosn mentioned above. > > In some very important matters tantrism is closer to christianity or > islam than to other hindu doctrines. And out of other hindu schools it > is close to most "heretical", such as sahajiya, natha and aghora. Matters like? Can we discuss atleast one important matter? Islam? Drinking wine is a sin in Islam. I am sure you know about that. How can you say Kaula is close to islam? > > Probably coz it wasnt scientific enough. > > Well, this is a futile statement. When one says scientific, it is understood that it comes with proper quotes and references and with a proper format of an article about to be published in magazines. I did not see that. > > Animal sacrifice isnt widespread but can be seen in other states > > too. Kamakhya(state of Assam) is another place. > > I know about Kamakhya. However it can be seen in shakta-tantric > temples only. Do U know about shaiva-siddhantins or vaishnavas > performing them? But they should according to their scriptures! The reason they dont is becoz of buddhist influence. > Daxinachara is a preliminary level before vama. It exists only to make > pashus suitable to vira-sadhanas. That is only one view. Not the entire view. > Most of Tantras prescribe vama/kaula-achara. Most say that 5M is the > essense of tantric doctrine (Kamakhya etc) and without 5M all sadhana > is useless or even sinful (MNT, Kularnava, Bhairava etc). Yes. Only vamachara tantras. Other tantras dont. > I already said about this view. It is de facto absent from most of > Tantras ( i may say all, with exception of Kalivilasa). I typed in a few of Avalon's quotings. SA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 The problem I am having is that in africa my library is not with me But I remember that Shankara in his "Tarka Karika(I think) said that Yoga, Tantra etc. are veda bahya. It is in (I think) Patanjali that we find mention of Panava as "Sa shabda pranavaH". And none of the Vedas do we find reference to Pranava. (they do in Upanishads but n in the 4 vedas. {I am not sure; I am speaking from memory; and I am growing old Waaahhhhh} Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha wrote: 93 My greetings! :-) > Not all tantras consider themselves as veda-bahya. If it is so,there will not be the standard talk about veda-viruddha tantra (tantras opposed to vedas) and veda-aviruddha tantras(tantras not > opposed to vedas). Of course not all, i didn't say that :-). I want to point out that by "vaidika" i usually mean that version of vedic dharma which got popular in recent times. However practically ALL Tantras are in contradiction with smriti. Even if they speak of Vedas highly (never of smriti/purana/itihasa btw), practical teachings of 'em are different.Kularnava says of Kaula-dharma as the essense of Veda, but what Kularnava teaches in viruddha to smarta and sanatani hinduism. Is there any need to proove it? > The standard example quoted in support of this is physicians making use to poison and arsenic compounds to enhance the health of a human. Likewise that which is sin according to vedas is used for spiritually advancing in some tantras. Does Abhinava say that vedas are imperfect? Yes. He states that all knowledge of Vedas is imperfect. It is not my view :-). U are right about poison stuff. Of course Tantras do not mean that sinning itself is good, nothing like that. If so why do tantras claim that they are the essence of veda? There can be little doubt here that when tantras talk about veda they talk about that which is generally known as veda. There are 2 main explanations. First one is that Vedas are not applied for kali-yuga (in MNT for instance). Second one is that Vedas are so to say a shell in which light of Agama is concieled. In practice both views result in same: it is needed nowadays to follow the tantric way of salvation. > You might be right when you say the connection is speculative.Likewise your statement "tantrics has to give official reasons...", I feel is only speculative. Guess work. Yes, it is only a guess. We cannot know exactly now what ppl thought several hundreds years ago. We may see that too many hymns, upanishads, kavachas are ascribed to A.V., but they are not present in the text we posess. A.V. was "used" to make whatever U want "vedic", due to the fact that A.V. text was not so exact as other samhitas. > As for Atharvana veda: One of the four principal Shankara mutts accepts only someone well versed in Atharvana veda as the head of the pitha or as a succesor. There is great effort going on to preserve the shakas of Atharvana veda from the time of Bhaskararaya. Those brahmins who have the last name as caturvedi, are all well versed in Atharvana -veda. Ofcourse, thesedays, last names are retained even though they dont study vedas at all. Myself i accept A.V., no need to prove me it's authenticity. My teachers also accept it. Sure, some tantric mantras were taken from A.V. (like Pratyangira) and other Vedas (Aghora-mantra, Mrityunjaya, some of 5M purification mantras). But this doesn't imply that Tantras came from these Vedas. That is speculative. When they say veda, they are definitely referring to what is generally known as vedas. his can be verified by examining the whole context. Sometimes we have to be a bit speculative (following the example of renown acharyas of the past), otherwise shastras are sometimes too contradictory. Some consider shruti is of two types. Veda and tantra. This is true. At least in classification :-). In fact tantric teachings are based on Tantras, not Vedas etc. Arthur Avalon suggests otherwise. He says that it is as old as other standard tantras. This is a very doubtful view. Language and composition of MNT reveal it as being rather recent work. We may add that some features of it's teachings count for the same. My guru told that some parts of MNT may be quiet old, thou the present text is obviously recent. A couple of tantras say that there is only pashu bhava in kali-yuga. They add that Vira and Divya bhava are absent in kali-yuga. I know only one Tantra of this peculiar kind - Kalivilasa. But pashu-bhava according to it is rather strange :-))). Can U name any other Tantra stating this? Usually it is exactly opposite. Thus, MNT says that there is no pashu-bhava in kali-yuga... Kaulas do worship Shiva and Devi. Dont they? Well, they worship ONE Divine Being, that is "polarized" as Shiva and Shakti (aka Prakasha-Vimarsha). It is totally different from worshipping devas in folk hinduism and even worship of Ishvara. > Grihasta ashrama(life of house-holder) is the ideal in hindu dharma. One can see lots of praise for this ashrama in smarta-shastra. Sanyasa being an ideal is a recent idea. Probably U are right. I not so well-versed in smriti. Anyway, in our time most of gurus are sannyasis, thou actually sannyasi should be guru to sannyasi and grihasthi to grihasthis :-(. Thus rules of sannyasa are often forced upon grihasthis. > There are differences. But does that made it different from hindu? No. Those differences we speak about are also hindu. Of course tantrics lived in hindu society and pretended to be hindus. "Inside kaulas, outside - shaivas, in the world as vaidikas"...:-) In some very important matters tantrism is closer to christianity or islam than to other hindu doctrines. And out of other hindu schools it is close to most "heretical", such as sahajiya, natha and aghora. Problem is that tantra is understood as black-magic. True, unfortunately :-(. > That policy # 4 is typed in 1999 when the group was started. A 1000 things changed from then. We should have updated that. Then U may understand that Ur actions seemed to be unreasonable. U should have put Ur rules clearly. > Probably coz it wasnt scientific enough. Well, this is a futile statement. > Coz Dakshinachara is the focus of that group. I point again, that it was somewhere in official materials said that proper posts on vamachara are accepted. > Animal sacrifice isnt widespread but can be seen in other states too. Kamakhya(state of Assam) is another place. I know about Kamakhya. However it can be seen in shakta-tantric temples only. Do U know about shaiva-siddhantins or vaishnavas performing them? But they should according to their scriptures! > Main tantric ritual is 5m only for a vamachari. The tantric rituals of Dakshinachara dont include 5m. Daxinachara is a preliminary level before vama. It exists only to make pashus suitable to vira-sadhanas. Most of Tantras prescribe vama/kaula-achara. Most say that 5M is the essense of tantric doctrine (Kamakhya etc) and without 5M all sadhana is useless or even sinful (MNT, Kularnava, Bhairava etc). > I dont think one is justified when he says main tantric ritual is 5m. It is central in kaula-tantrism. In any case, maithuna is. > Tantric need not be a vamachari. A couple of tantras say that there is only pashu-bhava in kali-yuga. I already said about this view. It is de facto absent from most of Tantras ( i may say all, with exception of Kalivilasa). > Meat andFish are used in vaidik kriyas. A good number of vedic yagas are incomplete without animal sacrifice. These yagas involving animal sacrifices are performed even today. I personally know ppl who does vedic yagas with animal sacrifice. I know about vedic sacrifises. But as i thought practises of ashvamedha etc were stopped long ago. Is it continued till now? Very interesting... > Shankaracharya's Prapanchasara tantra talks about intercourse as a kind of ritual. I also read that the Satapatha brahmana speaks about intercourse in a similar manner. Brihadaranyakopanishat does as well. This idea is vedic as well, not only tantric - no doubt in that. Sadly it almost vanished from hinduism... Some sects even prescribe their grihasthi followers to have sex for procreation! :-( Of course, this spoiles lives of ppl, i know examples with ISKCON in Russia... This ridiculous idea is neither vedic nor agamic, but some really perverted ppl invented it for making others suffer :-(. Love is the law, love under will. A. / Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.